BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 05.12.2019
Misc. Application No. 454 of 2019
And
Appeal No. 367 of 2019
Devendra Suresh Gupta
Ramdas Niwas, Room No. 1,
Chimatpada, Marol Naka,
Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059.

….. Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.

… Respondent
Mr. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate i/b
ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM : Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member (Oral)
1.

Heard the both sides. By the present Misc. Application, the
applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 201 days in filing the
appeal.

2
2.

The reasons forwarded in the application is that while the
present applicant is Devendra Suresh Gupta, the impugned order was
received at his house by his mother in the envelope in which the
name was shown as Suresh Devendra Gupta. The applicant was not
aware of the passing of the impugned order.

Thereafter, the
applicant himself vide letters dated February 11, 2019, February 18,
2019 and March 8, 2019 applied for the certified copy of the
impugned order. The said copy of the impugned order was delivered
to him on March 14, 2019. For these reasons, the applicant wants the
delay be condoned and appeal be admitted.
3.

It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent –
Securities and Exchange Board of India that the copy was served
upon the appellant by an email also. It was further submitted that it
is not the case of the applicant that the hard copy was not served at
his address. As per his own submission, the said copy was received
by his mother and the name on the copy of the impugned order is
correct one. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant is merely
making excuses of the clerical mistake occurred in the name of the
appellant shown on the envelope in the wrong manner.
4.

Upon hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that cause
shown is not sufficient and is not justified. It is to be noted that the
3
copy of the order was duly delivered at the address of the applicant
and it was admittedly received by the applicant’s mother. Merely
because some clerical mistake in the name of the applicant on the
envelop had occurred no excuse can be taken as the acceptance of the
delivery of the mother of the appellant and handing over to the same
applicant is established. Even otherwise, the condonation application
was filed by the applicant in the Tribunal on May 14, 2019 i.e. after
two months of the delivery of the second copy of the impugned
order.
5.

Considering the facts on record, we do not find any justification
in condoning the delay. The Misc. application is hereby dismissed
and, accordingly, the appeal is also disposed of.

Sd/Dr. C. K. G. Nair
Member
Sd/Justice M. T. Joshi
Judicial Member
05.12.2019
Prepared & Compared by
PTM